Backcountry-Chalets-Mgt-Ea-1993.Pdf
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
• - - -,. - -- .. - -- -- -.- .._- - • -L •• _.,. .. I I I • • F 737 .G5 E584 1993 JAN 31 2007 Prepared by: U.S. Department of Interior National Park Service Rocky Mountain Region and Glacier National Park November 1993 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MANAGEMENT OF BACKCOUNTRY CHALETS GLACIER NATIONAL PARK FLATHEAD COUNTY, MONTANA Summary The purpose of this environmental assessment (EA) is to decide the long-term future of Granite Park and Sperry chalets as visitor-use facilities. Sperry chalet was completed in 1913, and Granite Park chalet was completed in 1914 by the Great Northern Railway, as part of a system of seven backcountry lodging accommodations for Glacier. At that time, visitor access was primarily by horseback, and the chalets fell into disuse and neglect with the war and the shift to automobile use in the early 1930s. By 1950, of the original seven, only Granite Park and Sperry chalets remained and they were used through 1992, when they were temporarily closed because of regulatory changes that had occurred since their construction. Both chalets have substandard sewage and water systems, inadequate life-safety facilities, and suffer from a combination of high overhead and operating costs and minimal revenue-producing capability to sustain the traditional visitor service. In order to accomplish the needed improvements, substantial assistance from the private sector will be required. Four alternatives were examined for each of the two chalets and were based on the various possible solutions to the water and sewer problems, with level of use being dictated by the services available. Alternatives were broadly categorized: no wastewater generation (caretaker status), water only provided (overnight shelter with only drinking and dish-washing water available), and traditional service (alternatives 3: traditional service with composting toilets [the NPS preferred alternative), and 4: traditional service with flush toilets). To avoid confusion over which alternative constitutes no action, both an alternative representing the former level of service (alternative 4: traditional service with flush toilets) and a closure alternative (alternative 1: caretaker status) were evaluated. Alternatives for both chalets were similar, but because Sperry receives less day visitation that Granite Park, the required sewage treatment facilities there are smaller. The environmental consequences of the alternatives as well as the results of public involvement/ consultation/coordination to this point are documented in this draft EA. Under all alternatives, chalet improvements would occur within existing disturbed habitat and development zones, with the exception of a new water delivery pipeline route at Granite Park and a wastewater treatment system at Sperry. None of the alternatives considered would expand facilities or provide for a level of visitor use beyond that occurring prior to the 1992 chalet closures. There are no cumulative effects anticipated under any of the alternatives considered. All of the alternatives considered would eliminate both the discharge of sewage effluent directly to inadequately functioning leach fields and the previous necessity to release septic system bio-solids to exposed drying beds. The existing developed area at Granite Park affects about 4 acres. Improvements there would result in new permanent impacts to approximately 6,500 square feet of soil and vegetation, approximately 5,500 square feet of which would be rehabilitated following installation of the water and sewage facilities. Total area disturbed that would not be rehabilitated would be between 244 and 1,400 square feet, depending on the alternative selected. The existing developed area at Sperry affects approximately 10 acres. Improvements there would result in new impacts to a previously undisturbed area of approximately 3,500 to 5,400 square feet, and 6,1 00 square feet of previously disturbed area. Approximately 8,600 to 10,600 square feet of this area would be rehabilitated, while 700 to 1,000 square feet would be permanently altered. None of the proposed alternatives would be expected to have any long-term adverse effects on Glacier's resident or migratory threatened or endangered species, beyond those that may already exist due to historical visitor use. All of the alternatives would result in long-term positive net effects on the area's soil, water quality, and vegetative and wildlife resources. Address Comments to: Superintendent Glacier National Park West Glacier, Montana 59936-0128 ii CONTENTS PURPOSE AND NEED ................................................ 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................... 1 NEED FOR THE PROJECT ...... , ................................. 1 ISSUES ...................................................... 4 CONCESSIONS .......................................... 4 COSTS ................................................. 4 CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................... 4 DEVELOPMENT .......................................... 5 Access............................................. 5 Utility Systems . 5 Sewage Treatment . 5 Water systems . 6 Safety Considerations . 6 Stabilization/Structural Repairs . 7 NATURAL RESOURCES . 8 VISITOR USE . 9 ISSUES NOT ANALVZED . 9 Chalet Closure . 9 Life-Safety Issues . 10 Fees ....................................·. 10 Level of Services . 11 Effluent . 11 Applicability of Public Health Standards . 11 Impact Trade-off . 11 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ........................................... 17 GRANITE PARK CHALET .......................................... 17 ALTERNATIVE 1 -- CARETAKER STATUS . 17 Sewage Treatment . 17 Water System . 20 ALTERNATIVE 2-- SHELTER .................................. 20 Accessibility .................................... , .... 20 Sewage Treatment .................................... 20 Water System ........................................ 21 Power ............................................. 25 ALTERNATIVE 3 - TRADITIONAL SERVICE WITH COMPOSTING TOILETS ........................................... 25 Sewage Treatment .................................... 25 Water System . 25 Power ............................................. 25 ALTERNATIVE 4- TRADITIONAL SERVICE WITH FLUSH TOILETS ...... 27 Sewage Treatment .................................... 27 Water System ........................................ 28 Power ............................................. 28 ALTERNATIVE ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY ............... 28 SPERRY CHALET . 39 ALTERNATIVE 1 -- CARETAKER STATUS . 39 iii Sewage Treatment .................................... 39 Water System . 39 ALTERNATIVE 2-- SHELTER .................................. 39 Fire Protection . 39 Accessibility . 40 Sewage Treatment . 40 Water System . 44 Power ............................................. 44 ALTERNATIVE 3 -- TRADITIONAL SERVICE WITH COMPOSTING TOILETS ........................................... 44 Sewage Treatment . 44 Water System . 44 Power ............................................. 45 ALTERNATIVE 4-- TRADITIONAL SERVICE WITH FLUSH TOILETS ...... 45 Sewage Treatment . 45 Water System . 45 Power ............................................. 45 ALTERNATIVE ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY ............... 48 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION .......................................... 55 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES . 57 GENERAL IMPACTS . 57 GRANITE PARK . 58 NATURAL RESOURCES ..................................... 58 Affected Environment . 58 Impacts of Alternative 1 : Caretaker Status . 59 Geology/Soils . 59 Vegetation . 60 Wildlife . • . 61 Threatened and Endangered Species . 61 Water Quality . 61 Air Quality . 61 Impacts of Alternative 2: Shelter . 62 Geology /Soils . 62 Vegetation . 64 Wildlife ....................................... 64 Threatened and Endangered Species . 65 Water Quality . 65 Air Quality . 66 Impacts of Alternative 3: Traditional Service with Composting Toilets ........................................ 66 Geology/Soils . 66 Vegetation . 67 Wildlife . 67 Threatened and Endangered Species . 67 Water Quality . 67 Air Quality . 67 Impacts of Alternative 4: Traditional Service with Flush Toilets . 68 Geology /Soils . 68 Vegetation . 69 iv Wildlife . 70 Threatened and Endangered Species . 70 Water Quality . 70 Air Quality ..................................... 70 CULTURAL RESOURCES . 71 Affected Environment . 71 Impacts of Alternative 1: Caretaker Status . 72 Impacts of Alternative 2: Shelter . 73 Impacts of Alternative 3: Traditional Service with Composting Toilets ........................................ 73 Impacts of Alternative 4: Traditional Service with Flush Toilets . 74 SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES .............................. 77 Affected Environment . 77 Impacts on Local, State, or Regional Economy ............... 77 Impacts of Alternative 1: Caretaker Status . 78 Impacts of Alternative 2: Shelter . 78 Impacts of Alternative 3: Traditional Service with Composting Toilets ........................................ 79 Impacts of Alternative 4: Traditional Service with Flush Toilets . 79 VISITOR USE . 80 Affected Environment . 80 General Impacts . 82 Impacts of Alternative 1: Caretaker Status . 82 Impacts of Alternative 2: Shelter . 83 Impacts of Alternative 3: Traditional Service with Composting Toilets ........................................ 83 Impacts of Alternative 4: Traditional Service with Flush Toilets . 84 Cumulative Effects . ..